To:DAVID WIJNKOOP

Written:Written in German later than July 24, 1915Published:First published inPravdaNo. 21, January 21, 1949.

      Sent from Sörenberg (Switzerland) to Zwolle (Holland).

      Printed from the original.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[1976],

      Moscow,Volume 35,

      pages195-197.Translated:Andrew RothsteinTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive.You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work, as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

DearComrade Wijnkoop,

Thescheme with which we are now occupied, the plan
for an international declaration of principle by the Marxist
Left, is so important that we have no right to delay, and
must carry it through successfully to its conclusion,
moreover as quickly as possible. The fact that we are late with
it presents a great danger!

Thearticle by A. P. inBerner Tagwacht(July 24) on
the Congress of the S.D.P. of Holland is extremely
important for our mutual
understanding.[1]I welcome with the
greatest joy the position taken up by you, Gorter and
Ravesteyn on the question of a people’s militia (we have
that in our programme too). An exploited class which did
notstriveto possess arms, to know how to use them and
to master the military art would be a class of lackeys. The
defenders of disarmament as against a people’s militia
(there are “Lefts” of this kind in Scandinavia too: I argued
about this with Höglund in 1910) are taking up the
position of petty bourgeois, pacifists, opportunists in the small
states. But for us it is the point of view of thegreat statesand therevolutionary struggle(i.e.,also of civil war) which
must be decisive. Anarchists may be against a people’s
militia, from the point of view of the social revolution
(conceived of without relation to time and space). But ourmost importanttask now is to draw a sharp line of
demarcation between the Marxist Left on the one hand and the
opportunists (and Kautskians) and anarchists on the other.

Onepassage in the article by A. P. really revolted me,
namely the one where he says that the declaration of
principle by Mme. Roland-Hoist “completely corresponds to
the point of view of the S.D.P.”!!

Fromthat declaration of principle, in the form in which
it was printed inBerner Tagwachtand inInternationale
Korrespondenz,[2]I see that we cannotin any circumstancesaccept solidarity with Mme. Roland-Hoist. Mme.
Roland-Hoist, in my opinion, is a Dutch Kautsky or a Dutch
Trotsky. These peoplein principle“firmly disagree” with the
opportunists, butin practice, on all important questions, they
agree!! Mme. Roland-Hoist rejects the principle of defence
of the fatherland, i. e., she rejects social-chauvinism. That is
good.But she does not reject opportunism!!In a most lengthy
declaration there is not one word against opportunism!
There is not one clear, unambiguous word aboutrevolutionarymeans of struggle (but in return, all the more phrases
about “idealism”, self-sacrifice, etc., which every scoundrel,
including Troelstra and Kautsky, can very willingly
accept)! Not one word about arupturewith the opportunists!
The watchword of “peace” is quite dlaKautsky! Instead
of this (and quite consistently, from the point of view of
the unprincipled “declaration of principle” of Mme.
Roland-Hoist) the advice to co-operatebothwith the S.D.P.
and the S.D.L.P.!! This means unity with the opportunists.

Quitelike our Mr. Trotsky: “in principlefirmlyagainst
defence of the fatherland”, in practiceforunity with the
Chkheidze group in the Russian Duma (i.e., with the
opponents of our group which has been exiled to Siberia, with
thebest friendsof the Russian social-chauvinists).

No.No. Never and in no circumstances shall we agree in
principle with the declaration of Mme. Roland-Hoist. It is
a quite thoughtless, purely platonic and hypocritical
internationalism. Just one long compromise. It is suited
(speaking politically) only to the task of forming a “Left
wing” (i.e., a “harmless minority”, a “decorative Marxist
signboard”) in the old, rotten and scoundrelly lackey parties
(the Liberal Labour parties).

Ofcourse, we do not demand animmediatesplit in this
or that party, for example, in Sweden, Germany or France.
It is very possible that the time for this will be morefavourable (for example, in Germany) somewhat later. Butin
principlewe must unquestionably demand a complete break
with opportunism. Thewholestruggle of our Party (and of
the working-class movement in Europe generally) must be
directed against opportunism. The latter is not a current
of opinion, not a tendency; it (opportunism) has now become
the organised tool of the bourgeoisie within the
working-class movement. And furthermore: questions of the
revolutionary struggle (tactics, means, propaganda in the army,
fraternisation in the trenches,etc.) must undoubtedly be
analysedin detail, discussed, thought out, tested,
explained to the masses in the illegal press. Without this any
“recognition” of revolution remains only an empty phrase.
We have no common road with phrase-mongering (in Dutch:
“passive”) radicals.

Ihope, dear Comrade Wijnkoop, that you will not take
offence at these remarks of mine. After all, we must come
to a proper agreement, in order to carry on jointly thisdifficultstruggle.

Pleaseshow this letter to Comrade Pannekoek and other
Dutch friends.

Yours,N. Lenin

P.S.I will shortly semi you the official resolution of our
Party (of 1975) on the question of the right of all nations
to
self-determination.[3]We arefor this. Now, in the struggle
against the social-chauvinists, we must be more for this
than ever before.

[1]Referenceis to Anton Pannekoek’s article “Der Jahreskongress der
S.D.P. in Holland” (“The S.D.P. Congress in Holland”), published in the
supplement toBerner TagwachtNo. 170, July 24, 1915.

[2]InternationaleKorrespondenz(International Bulletin)—German
social-chauvinist weekly, appeared in Berlin from the end of September 1914
to October 1, 1918.

[3]Leninrefers to the resolution on the nationalities problem passed by
the “August” (“Summer”) Conference of the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P. with
Party workers, held in Poronin, September 23 to October 1 (October 6–14),
1913 (see present edition, Vol. 19, pp. 427–29).